Promote wind, not oil

Posted: January 30, 2012 - 5:41pm

(Re: Editorial, Jan. 21.)

You claim that President Obama made a “serious mistake” in opposing the oil pipeline from Canada. This line would pass over the Ogallala Aquifer and across miles and miles of some of the richest farm ground in our country.

I was in Canada and saw these oil sands. They are a mixture of thick sand and lumpy tar the Canadians now try to spread on the sides of their highways to prevent erosion. Because of its thick consistency, this mixture will have to be super-heated even to get it to flow. It is so thick and heavy that it needs 17,000 pounds of pressure per square inch to pump it down the line. This means that on even a 36-inch line, it would take almost 200,000 pounds of pressure per linear inch to keep it moving. Finally, because of the sands, this mixture is 16 times more corrosive on the pipeline than ordinary crude oil.

First, consider what the environmental damage might be, especially for the aquifer. It is claimed that one quart of oil can make 1 million gallons of water undrinkable. That is why it has become a crime to drain the oil from your car and then dump it on the ground. Even worse, think if this mixture had to be stopped to repair a major leak or even a blowout. The pressure would have to be released and this 2,000 miles of gunk would set up hard again.

If any of you have had to deal with a plugged sewer line in your house, how would you like 2,000 miles of this?

I appreciate President Obama insisting we take extra time to consider whether this fossil energy supply is worth the risk. Maybe we will learn that all these safety issues can be protected; but I am afraid of jumping into something too soon and then being trapped. Dad told me when I was cutting a board to measure twice and cut once; you make a lot fewer mistakes. This truth might apply here too.

We have such an abundance of clean wind energy to be harvested for future needs. Why does the paper seem quick to support our dependency on fossil fuels?